Annals of Surgical Oncology

, Volume 20, Issue 2, pp 600–606 | Cite as

Should Breast Density Influence Patient Selection for Breast-Conserving Surgery?

  • Nimmi S. Kapoor
  • Anne Eaton
  • Tari A. King
  • Sujata Patil
  • Michelle Stempel
  • Elizabeth Morris
  • Edi Brogi
  • Monica Morrow
Breast Oncology



In a previous study of the relationship between breast density and primary tumor features, we observed a higher mastectomy rate in patients with extremely dense breasts. Here we examine possible reasons for this finding.


Data were obtained from a prospectively maintained database of 1,056 invasive breast cancer patients from January 2005 to June 2007. Mammographic density was assigned by Breast Imaging-Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) classification. Initial and final surgical procedures, and patient and tumor variables were recorded.


Breast-conserving surgery (BCS) was attempted in 758 patients (72 %), 385 (51 %) of whom had preoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Initial BCS was less common among patients with the highest (BI-RADS 4) breast density compared to patients with less-dense breasts (52 vs. 74 %; p < 0.0001), but MRI use was more common (65 vs. 33 %; p < 0.0001). Adjusting for clinical and pathologic variables, patients with the highest breast density had 1.94-times (95 % confidence interval 1.44–2.62; p < 0.0001) the odds of initial mastectomy compared to patients with less-dense breasts. After initial BCS, 387 patients (51 %) had positive shaved margins, 96 (25 %) of whom converted to mastectomy. MRI did not correlate with the rate of positive margins overall or among those with dense breasts. Adjusting for clinical and pathologic variables, density did not predict margin status or conversion to mastectomy. In a multivariate model, age, histologic grade, extensive intraductal component, and multicentricity/multifocality were independently associated with conversion to mastectomy.


Density alone seems to influence the decision to proceed with initial mastectomy. When BCS was attempted, breast density was not associated with positive margins or conversion to mastectomy. A benefit of MRI in decreasing positive margins was not observed. These data do not support the use of breast density as a selection criterion for BCS.


Mammographic Density Positive Margin Breast Density Preoperative Magnetic Resonance Imaging Extensive Intraductal Component 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Conflict of interest

The authors report no commercial interest and no sources of financial or material support.


  1. 1.
    Boyd NF, Guo H, Martin LJ, et al. Mammographic density and the risk and detection of breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2007;356:227–36.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Vacek PM, Geller BM. A prospective study of breast cancer risk using routine mammographic breast density measurements. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev. 2004;13:715–22.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Vachon CM, Brandt KR, Ghosh K, et al. Mammographic breast density as a general marker of breast cancer risk. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev. 2007;16:43–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ma L, Fishell E, Wright B, et al. Case–Control study of factors associated with failure to detect breast cancer by mammography. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1992;84:781–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sala E, Warren R, McCann J, et al. Mammographic parenchymal patterns and mode of detection: implications for the breast screening programme. J Med Screen. 1998;5:207–12.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Arora N, King TA, Jacks LM, et al. Impact of breast density on the presenting features of malignancy. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010;17 Suppl 3:211–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Morrow M, Harris JR. Practice guideline for breast conservation therapy in the management of invasive breast cancer. J Am Coll Surg. 2007;205:362–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wright MJ, Park J, Fey JV, et al. Perpendicular inked versus tangential shaved margins in breast-conserving surgery: Does the method matter? J Am Coll Surg. 2007;204:541–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Holland R, Connolly JL, Gelman R, et al. The presence of an extensive intraductal component following a limited excision correlates with prominent residual disease in the remainder of the breast. J Clin Oncol. 1990;8:113–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sabel MS, Rogers K, Griffith K, et al. Residual disease after reexcision lumpectomy for close margins. J Surg Oncol. 2009;99:99–103.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Smitt MC, Nowels KW, Zdeblick MJ, et al. The importance of the lumpectomy surgical margin status in long-term results of breast conservation. Cancer. 1995;76:259–67.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Morrow M, Schmidt RA, Bucci C. Breast conservation for mammographically occult carcinoma. Ann Surg. 1998;227:502–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Yang TJ, Yang Q, Haffty BG, et al. Prognosis for mammographically occult, early-stage breast cancer patients treated with breast-conservation therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010;76:79–84.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cil T, Fishell E, Hanna W, et al. Mammographic density and the risk of breast cancer recurrence after breast-conserving surgery. Cancer. 2009;115:5780–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Buist DS, Abraham LA, Barlow WE, et al. Diagnosis of second breast cancer events after initial diagnosis of early stage breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2012;124:863–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bleicher RJ, Ciocca RM, Egleston BL, et al. Association of routine pretreatment magnetic resonance imaging with time to surgery, mastectomy rate, and margin status. J Am Coll Surg. 2009;209:180–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Houssami N, Ciatto S, Macaskill P, et al. Accuracy and surgical impact of magnetic resonance imaging in breast cancer staging: systematic review and meta-analysis in detection of multifocal and multicentric cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:3248–58.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Katipamula R, Degnim AC, Hoskin T, et al. Trends in mastectomy rates at the Mayo Clinic Rochester: effect of surgical year and preoperative magnetic resonance imaging. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:4082–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Pengel KE, Loo CE, Teertstra HJ, et al. The impact of preoperative MRI on breast-conserving surgery of invasive cancer: a comparative cohort study. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2009;116:161–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Turnbull L, Brown S, Harvey I, et al. Comparative effectiveness of MRI in breast cancer (COMICE) trial: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2010;375(9714):563–71.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Katz SJ, Lantz PM, Janz NK, et al. Patient involvement in surgery treatment decisions for breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:5526–33.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Liberman L, Kaplan J, Van Zee KJ, et al. Bracketing wires for preoperative breast needle localization. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2001;177:565–72.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Bani MR, Lux MP, Heusinger K, et al. Factors correlating with reexcision after breast-conserving therapy. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2009;35:32–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Malik HZ, Wilkinson L, George WD, et al. Preoperative mammographic features predict clinicopathological risk factors for the development of local recurrence in breast cancer. Breast. 2000;9:329–33.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Surgical Oncology 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nimmi S. Kapoor
    • 1
  • Anne Eaton
    • 2
  • Tari A. King
    • 1
  • Sujata Patil
    • 2
  • Michelle Stempel
    • 1
  • Elizabeth Morris
    • 3
  • Edi Brogi
    • 4
  • Monica Morrow
    • 1
  1. 1.Breast Service, Department of SurgeryMemorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer CenterNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.Department of Epidemiology and BiostatisticsMemorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer CenterNew YorkUSA
  3. 3.Department of RadiologyMemorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer CenterNew YorkUSA
  4. 4.Department of PathologyMemorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer CenterNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations